Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

So upset about school report. feeling like a shitty mother

396 replies

Harriet220909 · 11/07/2015 22:50

Had my son's school report back yesterday and I'm really upset
He hasn't met any of the targets for he's year. Not one.
I know I should have done more with him at home but I have an extremely demanding toddler, I'm stuck in a one bed flat so there's nowhere for him to go to do he's homework and I feel so shit.
He's such a bright child bit completly lacks confidence due to him being behind. He's writing is unreadable and when he asks me to read he's writing I try so hard to and he's little faces just crushes when I get it wrong

I feel awful and like I am failing him. He's got an awful father who never helps there's just little old me trying to do everything

And now he's behind and he knows it. Today he told me he feels stupid after attempting he's homework. I can't afford a tutor, how can I help him?

I just wish the school had told me he was behind instead of me having to read it on the report at the end of the year. I would have pushed him harder and tried to do more

OP posts:
Clavinova · 20/07/2015 22:19

As it turns out Denmark has a long tradition of 'free schools' offering parental choice and opened its first 'free school' in the 1850s;perhaps you have been looking too far afield for the ideology? Unfortunately Sweden appears to have opened its 'free schools' during the recession as a cost saving measure - as a way of reducing the burden of its generous welfare state.

mathanxiety · 21/07/2015 06:13

The US prides itself on being a meritocracy, and what a nice thought that is. Nevertheless, the aspiration of going to university is very robust in the US.

The UK is a lot of things, but a meritocracy is not one of them. Social mobility has stalled.

Nowhere is perfect of course, but a state where that elusive quality called 'poshness' counts for a lot is not one where merely doing well in your exams is going to help you advance.

LaBelleDame, indeed it has already started.

mrz · 21/07/2015 07:11

www.pewresearch.org/2007/09/13/a-nation-of-haves-and-havenots/ it seems you don't speak for the U.S. Math.

LaBelleDameSansPatience · 22/07/2015 07:16

Yes, Math, exam stress among 10 and 11 year olds and year 1 and 2 children being prepared for the phonic screening and year 2 tests, is a very real factor in the primary schools I know; not because of any ill will on the part of the teachers, but because they are suffering the same/far more of the same stress. In one school where I have contacts, explicit SAT's preparation is now to start in year 5 ...

mathanxiety · 22/07/2015 18:34

LaBelleDame, that is exactly my perception from friends' and rellies' accounts, and that is on top of stress related to entrance exams for selective secondaries for some of them.

Boobsofsteel · 22/07/2015 19:07

Omg he's 5! Surely at five all they need to do is abut of colouring and sitting nicely?

English schools are something else Hmm

mathanxiety · 23/07/2015 06:41

Indeed, Mrz. One wonders why anyone would bother with the relentless pushing of synthetic phonics at four and all the testing that happens from then on, since socio economic status is going to be the only factor that matters in the end and everybody knows that.

I suppose it is easier to force teachers to make bricks without straw than do something meaningful about inequality, and of course promising to make schools 'accountable', introducing more and more rigorous scrutiny and micromanagement, and pandering to the suspicion that is widely held among certain sections of the electorate that it is teachers who are failing children and not the whole of society goes down well at election time.

mrz · 23/07/2015 06:57

Indeed Math I also wonder where people get the strange impression of relentless pushing of anything in an Early Years setting. I can only assume they've never actually bothered to visit any reception classes or they have been extremely unlucky in their personal choice.

mrz · 23/07/2015 07:01

Of course I can't comment on whether there is relentless pushing of four year olds in the U.S. as its many years since I set foot in a school there.

mathanxiety · 23/07/2015 08:26

Why from the targets of course. Where there are targets there is pushing, and teachers getting anxious because with the targets come consequences and league tables. I do not know how you manage to stay so blithely unconcerned, though the linked pdf does highlight how completely disorganised and all over the place the state of play seems to be. Maybe your school is one that somehow manages to get everything completely right. There is also talk of weak teaching and an interesting comment on how boys seemed to lack focus and interest in the sort of activities that were attempted in classrooms.

Here is just one effect of schools trying to meet requirements:
'The introduction of the Foundation Stage Profile has had unintended effects on the age at which children are admitted to school. Some schools were proposing to change their admission arrangements from three to either one or two points in the year to make sure that they were able to complete the Foundation Stage Profile at the required time. The result was that four year olds were starting school earlier than they would otherwise have been.'

'Most teachers sought to develop the early skills of reading, writing and mathematics sensitively, appropriately introducing elements of the literacy hour and daily mathematics lesson as the reception year progressed. However, this was not easy where new pupils were admitted in the summer term: they had to acquire the social skills of settling into a new class alongside pupils who were already familiar with routines; at the same time, they were introduced to the structured approaches of whole class and group work sessions. The skills needed to support learning, such as social skills, perhaps understandably often received less emphasis than the content of the curriculum.'

I find that very interesting.

'In a small number of Year R classes, staff found it difficult to settle some boys into social routines such as listening, concentrating and focusing on a task, as well as taking part in the full range of activities rather than equipment such as the sand tray.'
I find this incredibly sad.

Overall of course, the problems are the predictable results of forcing square pegs into round holes/making students jump through hoops in terms of content of the curriculum that they are not ready for intellectually or emotionally able to engage with -- students who did not meet the targets in reception year progressed to Y1 and teachers pitched lessons at them that they couldn't learn. There are references to less mature students unable to concentrate in Y1 and busy work used to occupy some students while teachers taught others.

' Such behaviour in Year R also affected pupils’ learning in literacy and mathematics; some discussion sessions, for example, were dominated by a few boys or pupils who did not listen to each other. Mathematical learning was weakest where tasks were not matched closely enough to pupils’ needs. This led to disruption, poor concentration and an over-reliance on adult support because pupils were not clear what to do next.

In both Year R and Year 1, whole-class discussions were often too long, lasting up to 30 minutes: many pupils became bored. In Year R, this was partly related to pupils’ limited concentration span and their need for adult support to focus their attention, and partly, too, to their lack of skill in working co-operatively. Often they would become more involved with the lesson again when it was time to work more actively.

In Year 1 the most frequent causes of poor concentration were, similarly, over-long whole-class sessions, poorly organised ‘circle time’ discussions where not every pupil was fully involved and, most frequently, work which was not matched well enough to pupils’ needs. In some classes, teachers did not take enough account of pupils’ individual capabilities – not just in terms of knowledge, but also the extent to which they were able to work independently or needed regular adult support to sustain their involvement.

In both Year R and Year 1, some teachers used mixed-sex pairs of pupils, working together often on computer-based tasks. This was only partly successful: too often the boy used the keyboard whilst the girl watched or, frequently, provided the answers for the boy to type in.'

Tasks? On the computer?

What is being described is chaos.

Mrz, I recommend you take a look again at the link I provided to the day in the life of a Swedish day care facility where children up to 6 are taken care of. I promise you you will see huge differences between that and this description by OFSTED of some schools in Britain.
dera.ioe.ac.uk/4822/1/Transition%20from%20the%20Reception%20Year%20to%20Year%201_an%20evaluation%20by%20HMI%20%28PDF%20format%29.pdf

And all of this hurrying towards literacy and arithmetic (in the manner of cats being herded) is being done two and three years before students in Scandinavia start formal school.

mrz · 23/07/2015 08:47

Not very reliable to make assumptions based on incomplete information and understanding.

mrz · 23/07/2015 08:53

As to the age at which children are admitted to school being influenced by the EYFS Profile perhaps the authors aren't aware that in many areas it's been the norm for children to be admitted at age four for many decades before the EYFS was dreamed of.
In other areas I would argue that the governments promise of universal childcare is a more likely cause given that schools are considered free childcare.

mrz · 23/07/2015 09:21

www.crickweb.co.uk/Early-Years.html

mrz · 23/07/2015 10:26

vimeo.com/132787900

mathanxiety · 23/07/2015 21:00

I thought Ofsted had understood matters very well.

Who is learning, and more to the point, what is being learned when the boy monopolises the keyboard or the girl instructs the boy what to type?

I am puzzled as to why you think operations on a screen are acceptable when the same activities could be performed in a hands-on way -- 'dancing bears' could be played outdoors, figuring out what items are heavier or lighter should really be done with items the students can hold themselves and experiment with (you do not need polar bears or squirrels for this and actually, using things that are small but heavy vs items that are big but light can teach useful lessons), the musical pattern could be done with instruments or percussion items that the students could work with themselves.

The crickweb link shows activities related to curriculum content that is not relevant to the needs of 3, 4 or 5 year old children, who should be (a) interacting with other children and not using screens for content based material, and (b) engaged in far more physical activity than screen/tech use allows. This approach is shown in the Carterhatch link.

From the Carterhatch School video:
'A lot of teachers in England are under such huge pressures to get to targets, whereas these adults, they're coming in and they're enjoying interacting with the children every day'.

The narrator makes it clear that she is comparing her school to the many others that do not do things the way they do it at Carterhatch.

What I would fault Ofsted with is that it does not understand that the focus on academic results is misplaced at this early age, and it seems to want to make it easier for children to learn academic content. But its observations of stress, chaos, focus on record keeping, losing sight of everything important about school apart from the fact that Ofsted is breathing down the neck of schools are accurate.

mrz · 23/07/2015 21:10

Yes Math the Crick web site (and the others) show activities for a wide range of ages.
Why would you imagine that because children are doing these things they aren't also experiencing them outdoors or aren't weighing and measuring real objects and each other (not sure where you'd find a real hedgehog and pig to sit on a seesaw or three talking bears to measure) but why shouldn't children experience using a keyboard or an IWb or an iPad? Why shouldn't a girl instruct the boy what to press? It's called collaboration.

mathanxiety · 23/07/2015 22:35

I dunno, Mrz, why not ask Ofsted why they noted the phenomenon of a girl essentially not getting to do the fun part of using a computer, while the boy in some cases did not even have to do his own thinking?

Did you watch the Carterhatch video all the way through before you posted it? It seems to me that they would disapprove of the other sites you linked to.